Anyone watch "Oil Storm"?

[Mr. X]

You get the fed involved, and it will lead to NOTHING BUT shortages. Remeber, Jimmy Carter already took my money away to build an oil-shale extraction plant, so it's already taken care of...you mean it isn't in production? Can't be so. The government fairy can cure all our ills with a wave of it's magic wand...

The Fed gets involved to curtail the shortage, rather than let the market exhaust itself.

 

[Control Group]

Blow off al your regular customers for a one time buy? NOT good business. Not a good move. Have you ever owned or run a business?

Blow off all your regular customers for a greater total income from one customer? If that's such bad business, why did the NFL just do exactly that with EA over video game production? Or did the government make them do it?

Quit trying to come up with fantasy cases that could never happen to try to justify even more regulation now.

As opposed to your fantasy case of what would happen with no regulation whatsoever? Or is there some real-world example of this you can name? Not to mention that I am not now, nor have I ever been, in favor of "more regulation now." In fact, I've stated any number of times that we currently exist in an over-regulated system. I choose not to say that because some regulation is bad, all regulation is bad. Since you seem to have ignored or not understood me previously, let me state this again.

I THINK WE ARE CURRENTLY OVER-REGULATED. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE NEED MORE REGULATIONS. THINGS ARE TOO REGULATED AS IT IS (third time's the charm).

This belief is not inconsistent with believing that not all regulation is the work of the Devil.

The monopolies that led to the anti-trust laws could never have formed without the collusion of corrupt politicians - the same bunch you want to trust now. "Teapot Dome", anyone?

And the politicians would never have led to monopolies without the collusion of corrupt businesses. Explain to me why you trust business so much more than government, again?

Government intervention should be a limited, last-resort, temporary response if used at all

Watch out, you're slipping - that's dangerously close to admitting that it's possible that under extreme circumstances, government interevention is an appropriate response. Which, of course, is what I've been saying this whole time, no matter how many accusations of communism, statism, and command economism you've slung at me.

Could we talk about THE REAL WORLD? Plus if there are no competitors, time to form a start-up!

You're the one talking about some mythical place where there's zero regulation of anything by anyone. My claims regarding monopolization as a result of capitalism are historically demonstrable. Yours about the glorious utopia of no restraints on business are not. Plus, your claim about a start-up is highly disingenuous. Entrenched monopolies are difficult to dislodge. The odds of you having enough capital to start viable competition capable of defending yourself against predatory pricing are slim.

And even if it were so, we can alwasy impose regulation THEN, NOT a priori

Again, be careful, you're dangerously close to changing positions, here. You're pretty close to granting that if, in principle, a 19th-century style robber baron were to monopolize a critical resource, it might be legitimate for a governmental entity to step in and regulate. Which, again, is all I've been saying: that if such a thing happened, the government should regulate.

I disagree, plus those arren't the only two choices, now are they?

Why do you disagree? How is government control of the entire oil supply worse than Standard Oil's control of the entire oil supple? And of course they'e nore the only two choices. One might hypothesize some sort of "middle ground," wherein government prevents any one business from controlling the entire effective supply of some critical good, while business works to keep government from over-regulating it. In fact, this is the sort of "middle ground" I've been talking about this whole time.

Its called EXPERIENCE and HISTORY. The REAL history, not that mush they indoctrinated you with in school.

I love this argument. "Everything you know about history is wrong! I won't explain what actually happened, but take my word for it, your understanding is wrong!" Which is a bold claim to make when you have no idea where my knowledge of history has come from. For all you know, I could have dropped out of high school before US History, or I could have a Ph.D. in it. So, which EXPERIENCE and HISTORY is it that demonstrates that, if allowed, capitalism will not tend towards monopoly?

I'd think that, since capitalism rewards efficiency (which is its big selling point), and since economies of scale alway enhance efficiency, it would tend towards maximization of economies of scale. Or, to put it another way, monopoly. Please explain to me how I'm wrong. Feel free to cite EXPERIENCE and HISTORY. I'll keep eating my mush.

Nice theory, but much like Marxism, doesn't work in practice. What REALLY happens is government usurps power and authority, and the elected officials thereof extort bribes from business in the form of campaign contributions to either 1. minimize the effect of the ill-gotten power on their business, or 2. actually use the government's power to harm or prevent competition - either foreign or domestic. The only real solution is to reign in the governments ill-gotten power - then they have nothing to sell. More regulation just gives the politicos more to "sell".

Yep, government sure does. That's why I don't trust it. Of course, you avoid explaining why, exactly, I should trust the faceless corporation any more than I trust the government. You keep acting like I'm saying that government is great, and BigCo is evil, and we should place our faith in the government, which I'm not saying, nor have I ever said it. Let's give this another shot:

I DO NOT THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS GREAT. I DON'T LIKE THE GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNMENT USURPS POWER AND ABUSES AUTHORITY.

This belief is not inconsistent with believing that absolute trust in the good will of Carnegie Steel is also a bad idea.

And this would differ from rationing gasoline HOW?

It doesn't. And who cares? How is this relevant? What are you talking about? When did I propose rationing gasoline? The fed.gov has no authority to regulate your purchases at the pump. You may have noticed my comment on this in my last post...you know, the bit that said "[t]he feds clearly have no authority to regulate how much gas you buy at the pump." Your arguments in rebuttal of mine would be more effective if you read my arguments first. Just because you want to argue against gasoline rationing doesn't mean that I'm arguing for gasoline rationing.

And in a true democracy, with REAL respect for privacy, how is CA. going to even KNOW who is selling to MT, in order to inderdict it?

They don't have to know anything, they just have to buy enough to drive the price beyond what MT can afford. Or enter into agreements with WA and OR to not allow oil to pass through their states to get to MT, because they want to pressure MT into tougher gun control laws. Is this ridiculous? Not to the founders, since this is precisely the sort of thing they had in mind when granting the fed.gov authority to regulate commerce between the states.

You have failed to do anything other than conjure up fantasies that could never occur to prop up your unsupportale position. Should such an extreme case ever come to pass, government regulation could be tried asa a last resort - but things will never get to that stage, as the free market has a number of mechanisms to correct a misallocation of resources long before it would ever reach such a stage - PROVIDED the gov kept out.

Of course, if I cite real examples, you counter by explaining that it's only because of the mush they taught me in school that I believe capitalism had anything to do with it. While at the same time explaining that if I use hypotheticals, they're not real world enough. While at the same time claiming that your system, which does not exist and never has, will solve all the problems, and exempting yourself from the burden of proof you are imposing upon me. This is an excellent tactic, insofar as it means you can't lose.

You don't OWN the water table - you own the water that you have "captured" from it by pumping it out. Pollution of ground water, either deliberate or accidental, is already a basis for civil action in the courts.

Now we're back to the question of who does own the water table. And if no one does, we're all the way back to your explanation that the problem with the tragedy of the commons is someone should have owned the common area, and charged for its use. So do you want there to be a common resource, or not? In either case, how do you apportion use and protect the resource from purposeless damage? That it's already a basis for civil action in the courts isn't exactly a real good argument, since it's appealing to government to resolve the issue. Which, you know, is the reason for regulation.

ALL regulation is implimented "crappily" because ALL regulation can do is make something scarce

ALL for-profit commerce is implemented "crappily" because ALL for-profit commerce can do is raise the price of something beyond its cost. If making something scarce is inherently bad, then you ought to be in favor of banning all oil consumption, 'cause it's surely making oil scarcer. You'll argue that that's ok, because it's being made scarcer for a good reason - but once you've opened to door to increasing scarcity for good cause, it's a real short step to claiming that the government can increase scarcity for another good cause.

Who are free to seek employment elsewhere, yes?

Yep. Just like you're free to move to a different country if you don't like this one's regulations. Oh, wait, no other country is better? Of course, the exact same problem couldn't possibly occur with employers. You're guaranteed to find livable working conditions somewhere else.

I'm sure that was very comforting to factory workers at the height of the industrial revolution. Go get a job somewhere else. And it better be in a different town, 'cause we're blackballing you here. Oh, wait, you can't go to a different town, because all your income has been in company scrip worth nothing outside the company store? Whoops. Better take up farming. Oh, wait, can't take up farming because you can't afford land? What a shame. Maybe you should form a union, so the Pinkertons can identify the real troublemakers and, er...take care of them.

Of course, this is more of that mush I've been taught. And it's not relevant today. But it's not irrelevant because of regulation, it's irrelevant for other reasons entirely.

What company is big enought to hurt "the economy as a whole"? Only Greenspan and the legislature have that kind of power.

Enron? GM (which has the 18th-largest GDP in the world)? The Savings & Loans that had to get bailed out, lest they bring the economy down?

A position you try to defend by conjuring up bogeymen stories chock full of those absolutes you don't accept....

Well, when I use real-world examples, you claim they're not relevant. When I use hypothetical examples, you claim they're bogeymen.

And, finally:

The intent was pre-emptive - to keep Viginia from taxing, say cotton, "imported" from Alabama. You also are dodging the fact that the 10th Ammendmant MODIFIES the commerce clause, by denying the government the power to act unless such power has been SPECIFICALLY DELEgATED to the fed - hence the 18th ammendmant to ban alcohol.

So you're saying that the interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to amend the Constitution in order to regulate interstate commerce? Did they really need an interstate commerce clause to grant them the power to fundamentally change what the Constitution says? That's as bogus an argument as the 2nd granting the government the authority to raise a militia. The clear and obvious meaning of the interstate commerce clause is that the Congress has the legal authority to enact laws in regulation of commerce between the states. Just like every other clause in the Constitution granting the Congress authority to do things. I love the 10th amendment, but for Heaven's sake, intepreting it to mean that Congress can only do the things the Consitution says it can do by amending the Constitution just might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

[Control Group]

Incidentally, I'm probably ceding right of last word to you, since I've already spent far more time on this conversation than I can afford. So make it a good one.

 

[richyoung]

The Fed gets involved to curtail the shortage, rather than let the market exhaust itself.

Your grasp of economics is flawed. As the commodity, (oil, gold, widgets, whatever) gets increasingly scarce, in a free market, prices rise. The increased price motivates the following:

1. Stimulates exploration for more of the resource.
2. As prices rise, some marginal users stop using the product, or use it less, making more available to those willing to spend more.
3. People develope and use substitutes for the product, making "more" of it available.

The actual resource is never "exhausted" - it risees in price until either a substitute is cheaper to use, new supplies are developed that weren't economically, technologically, (or politically, see:ANWAR) viable at lower prices, or use is curtailed due to cost. Usually all three happen, and oil is no different - at $55 a barrel, oil shale, liquified coal, and biomass become very viable in the short run, and other alternatives in the long run. You can make gasoline out of garbage if you have enough nuke power online.

 

[Mr. X]

Your grasp of economics is flawed. As the commodity, (oil, gold, widgets, whatever) gets increasingly scarce, in a free market, prices rise. The increased price motivates the following:

1. Stimulates exploration for more of the resource.
2. As prices rise, some marginal users stop using the product, or use it less, making more available to those willing to spend more.
3. People develope and use substitutes for the product, making "more" of it available.

YOUR grasp is flawed; none of these occurances, save #2, occur overnight and none prevent shortages. Neither does regulation of consumption, but it does mitigate the problem until market forces can, presumeably, solve the problem.

 

[richyoung]

As opposed to your fantasy case of what would happen with no regulation whatsoever? Or is there some real-world example of this you can name?

for the vast majority of human existence, poor old homo sapiens struggled along with so little "regulation" as such that it practically was none at all...


[

This belief is not inconsistent with believing that not all regulation is the work of the Devil.

Nor is it proof that regulation isn't the work of the Devil, so to speak. Whenever ANYTHING has been regulated for a long period, scarcity results - because the government is trying to short-circuit the free market mechanisms that correct the situation. The gov of Cali strictly regulated neew power plant construction - result: rolling blackouts. Rent controls in New York City and San Fran? Little new construction and the inevitable housing shortages. Show me an exaple of legitimate government regulation that worked.

And the politicians would never have led to monopolies without the collusion of corrupt businesses. Explain to me why you trust business so much more than government, again?

I don't trust business. I trust Adam Smith's "invisible hand" to regulate it much more than some unelected beaurocrat or corrupt chucklhead politico, based on history and experience. LEFT ALONE, the decisions of millions of individuals to buy, sell, wait or abstain can regulate the market far better than any government, because the government can't have anywhere near as much information.

Quote:
Government intervention should be a limited, last-resort, temporary response if used at all

Watch out, you're slipping - that's dangerously close to admitting that it's possible that under extreme circumstances, government interevention is an appropriate response. Which, of course, is what I've been saying this whole time, no matter how many accusations of communism, statism, and command economism you've slung at me.

Extreme circumstances only : war, natural disaster, etc. And only for the duration of the emergency. (Incidently, FDR declared that we are in an "emergency", and no succeeding president has had the honesty to revoke it...)

Quote:
Could we talk about THE REAL WORLD? Plus if there are no competitors, time to form a start-up!

You're the one talking about some mythical place where there's zero regulation of anything by anyone. My claims regarding monopolization as a result of capitalism are historically demonstrable.

I think you will find that the "robber barons" got started by getting free land alonside railroad right-of-ways as an incentive to expand. Government giving land to business, (which it should not have owned, BTW) is the very OPPOSITE of fre market capitalism.

Yours about the glorious utopia of no restraints on business are not. Plus, your claim about a start-up is highly disingenuous. Entrenched monopolies are difficult to dislodge. The odds of you having enough capital to start viable competition capable of defending yourself against predatory pricing are slim.

Yup - no way Rupert Murdoch and Fox can compete against the entrenched "Big Three" networks, much less cable or satellite. No way Bill Gates can compete with an established company like IBM, Burroughs, CDC, DEC, Novell, WordPerfect, Oracle, QuattroPro. No way that Dominos can compete with Pizza Inn and Pizza Hut. Burger King can't hang with McDonald's...

Quote:
And even if it were so, we can alwasy impose regulation THEN, NOT a priori

Again, be careful, you're dangerously close to changing positions, here. You're pretty close to granting that if, in principle, a 19th-century style robber baron were to monopolize a critical resource, it might be legitimate for a governmental entity to step in and regulate. Which, again, is all I've been saying: that if such a thing happened, the government should regulate

.


Under CURRENT rules, can't happen - regulated already. Again, oil and energy are the MOST regulated commodities - this has led to nothing BUT monopolies and shortage.


Quote:
I disagree, plus those arren't the only two choices, now are they?

Why do you disagree? How is government control of the entire oil supply worse than Standard Oil's control of the entire oil supple?

Ignoring anti-trust for the sake of the hyptothetical, the 10th ammendmant limits government control to those areas it has been SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED authority over. Please tell me where the word OIL is in the constitution? Just like Hamilton argued that no 2nd Amm was needed because the Fed wasn't GIVEN any authority to regulate arms - and this in an environment where the Commerce Clause wasn't restricted by the 10th yet! Government control is WORSE because its a USURPTION of power it doesn't legitimatley have. As one supreme court justice wrote, "a crisis nether creates or expands constitutional authority." The robber-baron, while unfortunate, is not extra-legal, and there are mechanisms in the free market to deal with even such an abberation. Look at OPEC, they are desperate to increase production - because they know if current prices stay this high, we'll be oil-shale'n and coal liquifyin' in short order - not to mention drilling deeper, biomassing, increasing production in old fields, etc.

And of course they'e nore the only two choices. One might hypothesize some sort of "middle ground," wherein government prevents any one business from controlling the entire effective supply of some critical good, while business works to keep government from over-regulating it. In fact, this is the sort of "middle ground" I've been talking about this whole time.

"Middle ground" is an illusion - you are either free, or regulated, pregnant, or not. Even you admitted that we are "over-regulated".

Quote:
Its called EXPERIENCE and HISTORY. The REAL history, not that mush they indoctrinated you with in school.

I love this argument. "Everything you know about history is wrong! I won't explain what actually happened, but take my word for it, your understanding is wrong!" Which is a bold claim to make when you have no idea where my knowledge of history has come from. For all you know, I could have dropped out of high school before US History, or I could have a Ph.D. in it. So, which EXPERIENCE and HISTORY is it that demonstrates that, if allowed, capitalism will not tend towards monopoly?

US, pre-civil war, for one. BTW, what IS your history education, since you brought it up?

I'd think that, since capitalism rewards efficiency (which is its big selling point), and since economies of scale alway enhance efficiency, it would tend towards maximization of economies of scale. Or, to put it another way, monopoly. Please explain to me how I'm wrong. Feel free to cite EXPERIENCE and HISTORY. I'll keep eating my mush.

Uh, LARGeNESS is not the same thing as "efficiency" - you are falling into the fallacy of static planning. The economy is dynamic, constantly changing, and smaller companies can react to the changes faster, and exploit short-lived markets, than behemoths, even monopolies. Look at music - no one can compete with the economies of scale that prevailed in music in the early eighties - Sony, Capitol, RCA, etc. Yet there are a zillion independant record companies now....how? It sure wasn't the government! In the energy field, a small company has no ox to gore, it can start a pilot plant ot liquify coal, for example, that a major oil company would never do, as it would imperil the "monopoly" they already have....enjoy the mush!



Quote:
Nice theory, but much like Marxism, doesn't work in practice. What REALLY happens is government usurps power and authority, and the elected officials thereof extort bribes from business in the form of campaign contributions to either 1. minimize the effect of the ill-gotten power on their business, or 2. actually use the government's power to harm or prevent competition - either foreign or domestic. The only real solution is to reign in the governments ill-gotten power - then they have nothing to sell. More regulation just gives the politicos more to "sell".

Yep, government sure does. That's why I don't trust it. Of course, you avoid explaining why, exactly, I should trust the faceless corporation any more than I trust the government.

The corporation is likely PUBLICLY OWNED and TRADED, so you can buy a stke in it if you choose, and even have a say in how it's run by voting your shares or assigning your proxie. The co. probably has competitors I can choose to patronize. The company probably has a CEO and board of directors who have to answer to the stockholders, and has to divulge certain information to those stockholders, who can get mad and can the lot, at any time. In contrast, there is just ONE FedGov - no competitor (at least right now...), and I only get the slim chance to fire a tiny portion of it when the elections roll around, and I NEVER get to fire the parts that really ire me (Sen. Kennedy, BATF, stupid SCOTUS judges) EVER. That's why. I find the Robber Baron more ammenable to favorable change in a shorter timeframe.

You keep acting like I'm saying that government is great, and BigCo is evil, and we should place our faith in the government, which I'm not saying, nor have I ever said it. Let's give this another shot:

I DO NOT THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS GREAT. I DON'T LIKE THE GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNMENT USURPS POWER AND ABUSES AUTHORITY.

ditto, agin

This belief is not inconsistent with believing that absolute trust in the good will of Carnegie Steel is also a bad idea.

I don't trust it either - I trust the free market, and have seen too many supposedly good-intended measures to "help" or "correct" the free market be perverted into corrupt government power and stifling of competition.

 

[richyoung]

Quote:
And this would differ from rationing gasoline HOW?

It doesn't. And who cares? How is this relevant? What are you talking about? When did I propose rationing gasoline? The fed.gov has no authority to regulate your purchases at the pump. You may have noticed my comment on this in my last post...you know, the bit that said "[t]he feds clearly have no authority to regulate how much gas you buy at the pump." Your arguments in rebuttal of mine would be more effective if you read my arguments first. Just because you want to argue against gasoline rationing doesn't mean that I'm arguing for gasoline rationing.

What type of oil regulation does NOT have the eventual effect of rationing the oil? Government is powerless to wish oil into existence - it can only ration existing oil, whether "at the pump" or elsewhere, at the pump is where it will be felt. The free market rations oil as well, and does a better job.

Quote:
And in a true democracy, with REAL respect for privacy, how is CA. going to even KNOW who is selling to MT, in order to inderdict it?

They don't have to know anything, they just have to buy enough to drive the price beyond what MT can afford.

Except that in the real world, the state of California buys only a fraction of the oil in Cali - individual people do. How are you going to coerce them to buy so much, and at higher prices, just to shut off the supply to another state? How do you know the people of Mt. aren't willing to pay just as much? You example reveals a serious niavety about how commodities are bought and sold...

Or enter into agreements with WA and OR to not allow oil to pass through their states to get to MT, because they want to pressure MT into tougher gun control laws. Is this ridiculous? Not to the founders, since this is precisely the sort of thing they had in mind when granting the fed.gov authority to regulate commerce between the states.

Agreed - like I said, it was PRE-EMPTIVE! Since this scenario has been dealt with, no further regulation needed.

Of course, if I cite real examples, you counter by explaining that it's only because of the mush they taught me in school that I believe capitalism had anything to do with it. While at the same time explaining that if I use hypotheticals, they're not real world enough. While at the same time claiming that your system, which does not exist and never has, will solve all the problems, and exempting yourself from the burden of proof you are imposing upon me. This is an excellent tactic, insofar as it means you can't lose.

Show me a REAL WORLD case of which you speak, and I'll show WHY it wasn't the fault of free market capitalism, (which is not the only kind, BTW).

Quote:
You don't OWN the water table - you own the water that you have "captured" from it by pumping it out. Pollution of ground water, either deliberate or accidental, is already a basis for civil action in the courts.

Now we're back to the question of who does own the water table. And if no one does, we're all the way back to your explanation that the problem with the tragedy of the commons is someone should have owned the common area, and charged for its use. So do you want there to be a common resource, or not? In either case, how do you apportion use and protect the resource from purposeless damage? That it's already a basis for civil action in the courts isn't exactly a real good argument, since it's appealing to government to resolve the issue. Which, you know, is the reason for regulation.

You are confusing what "should be", no regulation, with my enumeration of "what is" (water rights law) to explain why your justification for regulation can be addressed through our existing legal system without the need for regulation. And no, it's NOT "the reason for regulation" - to have courts to settle such wrongs is WHY WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT.

Quote:
ALL regulation is implimented "crappily" because ALL regulation can do is make something scarce

ALL for-profit commerce is implemented "crappily" because ALL for-profit commerce can do is raise the price of something beyond its cost.

If you sell it for less than it's cost, you lose money, thereby losing the ability to employ people, pay taxes, fund alternate fuel research...profits are a good thing. Why do you think they are bad?

If making something scarce is inherently bad, then you ought to be in favor of banning all oil consumption, 'cause it's surely making oil scarcer.

Government is not instuted for, nor endowed with the legitimate authority to create scarcity for any reason, much less "my own good". Temporary scarcity whilst the free market adjusts itself is part of the price I am willing to pay to be free.

You'll argue that that's ok, because it's being made scarcer for a good reason - but once you've opened to door to increasing scarcity for good cause, it's a real short step to claiming that the government can increase scarcity for another good cause.

...which is a step I choose not to take....

Quote:
Who are free to seek employment elsewhere, yes?

Yep. Just like you're free to move to a different country if you don't like this one's regulations. Oh, wait, no other country is better? Of course, the exact same problem couldn't possibly occur with employers. You're guaranteed to find livable working conditions somewhere else.

Another false argument. I HAVE to live somewhere, hence I must submit to some government. Employment-wise, I can find another job in the sasme field, change fields, work for myself, or start my OWN company. And NO the "exact same problem" couldn't occur with employers, not in the real world, because in a free market, such employers will soon only be left with employees lacking the brains and innitiative to work elsewhere...and they are all in DC already...

I'm sure that was very comforting to factory workers at the height of the industrial revolution. Go get a job somewhere else. And it better be in a different town, 'cause we're blackballing you here. Oh, wait, you can't go to a different town, because all your income has been in company scrip worth nothing outside the company store? Whoops. Better take up farming. Oh, wait, can't take up farming because you can't afford land? What a shame. Maybe you should form a union, so the Pinkertons can identify the real troublemakers and, er...take care of them.

Of course, this is more of that mush I've been taught. And it's not relevant today. But it's not irrelevant because of regulation, it's irrelevant for other reasons entirely.

Yep. Someday, long from now, long after youv'e finally had your first legal beer and voted for president a couple of times, you will realize what a mess of tripe you were taught in school, and start teaching yourself what really happened. When that blessed day comes, I shall have the sympathy and good taste not to remind you of the above comment, which could have come right out of the pages of my worthless nineth-grade civics book.
Quote:
What company is big enought to hurt "the economy as a whole"? Only Greenspan and the legislature have that kind of power.

Enron? GM (which has the 18th-largest GDP in the world)? The Savings & Loans that had to get bailed out, lest they bring the economy down?

Enron tanked, and the economy is still fine. Studebaker tanked, and GM will soon, (it is inevitable, outside of a foolish bailout like Chrysler got, or they would have tanked...), and the economy will endure. SOME people will be hurt, but thats the risk you take to be free. Even the S&Ls couldn't have brought down the economy, and the whole problem was caused by the government regulation in the first place. (Government has NO BUSINESS "guaranteeing" deposits or retirement pensions...) While the exaples you cite are regrettable, I have to ask - shouldn't "government regulation" have prevented Enron (energy, securities), GM (EPA, OSHA, Nat'l Labor relations Act, EPA), and the S&L (SLIC, securities, Fannie and maggie mae) from even happening?

Quote:
A position you try to defend by conjuring up bogeymen stories chock full of those absolutes you don't accept....

Well, when I use real-world examples, you claim they're not relevant. When I use hypothetical examples, you claim they're bogeymen.

..because you can't pick a real world example that is, you can only barf back what the NEA stooges propagandized you with in high school...

And, finally:


Quote:
The intent was pre-emptive - to keep Viginia from taxing, say cotton, "imported" from Alabama. You also are dodging the fact that the 10th Ammendmant MODIFIES the commerce clause, by denying the government the power to act unless such power has been SPECIFICALLY DELEgATED to the fed - hence the 18th ammendmant to ban alcohol.

So you're saying that the interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to amend the Constitution in order to regulate interstate commerce?

No. I am saying the 10th resticted the commerce clause to it's pre-emptive nature unless such activity was essential to the exercise of a specifically delegated power or authority. Only an ammendmant can grant a new authority - Congress can't "grant" itself any LEGITIMATE authority it doesn't already have, (see Marbery vs. Madison). Thats why the 18th was necessary for Prohibition - otherwise, they could have just taxed hooch at $200 a bottle under the Commerce clause.

Did they really need an interstate commerce clause to grant them the power to fundamentally change what the Constitution says?

It's not a mandate for federal regulation -its a prememptive prohibition of state regulation, (or it was, until perverted beyond all reasonability by a corrupt president, congress, and courts...)

The clear and obvious meaning of the interstate commerce clause is that the Congress has the legal authority to enact laws in regulation of commerce between the states.

It was pre-emptive - kind of like when states pre-empt gun law NOT to enect restrictions, but to prevent cities from enacting them. Got it?

Just like every other clause in the Constitution granting the Congress authority to do things. I love the 10th amendment, but for Heaven's sake, intepreting it to mean that Congress can only do the things the Consitution says it can do ...

If Congress can do things the Constitution DOESN'T say it can do, then we don't have a Constitution!

...by amending the Constitution ....

That's how you add a power or authority that isn't already there. Not by passing a law...NOT by judicial fiat...you pass and ratify and ammenmant, or convene a constitutional convention. Those are the ONLY two legitimate ways by which government power can be expanded.

just might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

So you think that a government that lives within its rules, and follows the legal procedure to ammend those rules is "the stupidest thing I've ever heard". That speaks volumes, my friend...volumes.
__________________

 

[richyoung]

YOUR grasp is flawed; none of these occurances, save #2, occur overnight and none prevent shortages. Neither does regulation of consumption, but it does mitigate the problem until market forces can, presumeably, solve the problem.

Regulation PREVENTS market forces from reacting, and, thereby solving the proble, That's the whole point of regulation - an attempt to "over-rule" the answer the free market is already giving you, because you don't like the answer! Like most such things, the "cure" is worse than the disease, even assuming such an attempt is a legitimate exercise of government power, which it usually isn't.

 

[Tag]

Quote:
I don't think there is a solution. There are too many people.


Your true colors are revealed - are volunteering to take the first personal step to remedy the situation, or do you REALLY mean "there are too amny OTHER people (driving up the cost of my gasoline)"?

Well, I was not going to respond, as I think you missed my point entirely, but I would like to clarify.
There are too many people period. Not too many for my tastes or too many that are using my gas. Too many for the planet to sustain. When a shortage of cheap oil becomes a permanent fact there will not be any food aid going anywhere. Agreed that some of the 'third world' areas will likely not much care one way or the other, but those dependant on international aid will be left flat.

Our coal reserves in which you have so much faith will not last 800 years if they are being converted to go juice on a massive scale.

Whale Oil has nothing to do what we are staring down now.

Richyoung, I do not mean to be overly hostile, and we are in total agreement that the free market will eventually destroy demand. But my thoughts center on the fact that with a drop in demand for the life-blood of our modern world there will be painful ramifications. If people can't drive to work, or grow and ship food, where does that leave us?

The Germans solved converting coal into gasoline back in WWII - it's no mystery, and we are now running plants which convert turkey guts to diesel oil. As oil prices rise, more and more people will be starting up companies to do similar things.

Again, I feel you are missing the point. You can't grow enough turkeys to solve this problem. The costs of starting those new alternative fule companies will be too high to be viable. I am talking about a system based on cheap oil, and you are talking about alternatives. I feel that there are none. Any finite resource that is pushed into the spotlight as a replacement for cheap oil will not solve anything, be it turkeys or garbage.

 

[Art Eatman]

About 16% of US electricity is from nuclear power. The majority is from coal; I've read that we have some 400 years' worth at present usage.

California's electric generating capacity increases in recent years has been via natural gas-fired generators. Less particulates; allegedly less CO2 per MW. (IMO, natural gas is too important for other uses for it to be "wasted" on generating electricity .)

IMO, storage of waste from nukes is a reasonably well-solved problem, from the standpoint of geology and engineering. It is an unsolved problem from the standpoint of emotion and politics.

I note that the marketplace is already causing changes in the use of petroleum: SUV sales are down some 27%. Prius sales are picking up. I'd bet that this new Ford combined-power SUV-looking critter, with its highway mileage around 37/gallon, will do well in sales. GM is advertising that it makes 20 different cars that get above 30mpg.

With oil hanging at around $50/bbl for West Texas Intermediate, I imagine that my "muddling through" premise is valid. That is, we'll see development of better usage of coal, drilling in the ANWR, fuel cels etc., and other items in the mix of electric supply and transportation.

My comment about WW II gas rationing: It doesn't matter if it was truly necessary. That's irrelevant. It happened, and it is a precedent in the event of a perceived emergency. The operative word is "perceived".

Art

 

[Richard.Howe]

May or may not be relevant, but here's a presentation from API (people who know what's going on out there, for real) in January of this year. Before you read it, it may be worth knowing that our U.S. crude consumption rate has remained relatively unchanged for the past 30 years...

State of the Energy Industry 2005, Petroleum Issues
Presentation by Red Cavaney
President and CEO, American Petroleum Institute
at the U.S. Energy Association’s Forum:
“The State of the Energy Industry 2005”
January 18, 2005

I’m honored to be a part of this symposium and want to thank Barry Worthington and USEA for arranging this timely and informative event.

A sad event this past year was the death of a great American president, Ronald Reagan. We remember how, in his TV debate with President Jimmy Carter in 1980, candidate Reagan asked Americans: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

Today, we can ask the same question about our nation’s energy situation. Can anyone say with a straight face that we are better off today, energy-wise, than we were four years ago when USEA issued its groundbreaking report calling for “development and implementation of a sound National Energy Strategy”?

Can anyone seriously suggest that four years of inaction by Congress on energy policy has benefited our country? Can anyone really deny that we are worse off than we were in 2001 -- when the Administration made its first energy proposals, and the first energy bills were introduced in Congress?

The sad fact is that the current policy framework does not deliver as promised. The net effect of implementation of current oil and natural gas policy is to decrease reliance on U.S. production and increase dependence on foreign imports.

Four years ago, when USEA issued its report, we recognized the steadily growing U.S. demand for energy of all types. I will spend my time today talking about oil and natural gas – and my fellow presenters will address the other aspects of energy and energy efficiency. But, at the outset, let me call attention to the DOE Energy Information Administration’s forecasts of increased energy demand from 2003 to 2025. EIA projects that:

Real GDP will increase by 95 percent;
Population will increase by 20 percent;
Total energy consumption will increase by 36 percent;
Petroleum demand will increase by 39 percent;
Natural gas demand will increase by 40 percent;
Coal demand will increase by 34 percent; and
Electricity consumption will increase by 50 percent.
We cannot discuss the challenge of meeting the growing U.S. energy demand without first understanding the global energy situation. In the world of energy, the U.S. must operate in a global market. What others do in that market matters greatly.

Look at what happened just last year. World demand for crude oil typically grows annually a bit more than 1 million barrels per day. In 2004, it grew 2.7 million barrels per day – too closely approaching total worldwide supply.

Not surprisingly, China has played a big role in the increase in world oil demand, and India will not be too far behind in the future. China, long self-sufficient in oil, is now becoming one of the world’s biggest importers. China accounted for more than half of world oil-demand growth in 2002 and 2003. The highly regarded energy analyst Daniel Yergin has noted that, over the next 10 years, Chinese and Indian oil companies will emerge as major players in the global oil industry.

Correspondingly, the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts oil demand in South Asia will grow by 3.3 percent per year between 2000 and 2030, the highest of any region in the world.

A comprehensive U.S. energy policy must recognize the growing impact of these new, major competitors for energy supply in the world. For the U.S. to secure energy for its economy, government policies must create a level playing field for U.S. companies to insure international supply competitiveness. With the net effect of current U.S. policy serving to decrease U.S. oil and gas production and increase our reliance on imports, this international competitiveness point is vital. In fact, it is a matter of national security.

These global realities underscore the need for action to meet the energy challenges facing the United States. Experience tells us that – in a nation with an economy and way of life so tied to energy – inaction comes at a high cost. Doing nothing is not cheap!

Yet, inaction is what we have seen. Many of us – working with USEA and other concerned organizations - have worked long and hard over the past four-plus years to bring about enactment of national energy legislation. The last Congress was particularly frustrating. While the House acted, the politics of the Senate – with its early focus on the 2004 elections – came up a few votes short, resulting in no bill.

What is so difficult to understand is how we could have had four years of inaction on energy at a time when the nation has been beset by energy problems. Just look back over these four years:

An estimated loss of one-half to a full percentage point of GDP growth already, according to published reports, to say nothing of the related job losses;
Gasoline and diesel price spikes and tight supplies in the Midwest and elsewhere;
Declining U.S. natural gas production in the face of increased demand and resulting price volatility;
Soaring heating oil prices and tight supplies in New England; and
Electric power blackouts in the Northeast and in portions of California.
One would think legislators would recognize that inaction has a direct and harmful impact on all U.S. energy-users: small business men and women, home-owners, schools and hospitals, stores, factories, and businesses of all sizes and types all over this country. Failing to pass national energy legislation hurts real people – those who rely on energy to heat their homes, fuel their vehicles, and power their small businesses. They are the ones who bear the brunt of higher energy prices and supply disruptions.

Yet, the energy plight that Americans face seems to have had little or no effect in galvanizing lawmakers to action. Think about it - taking no action is tantamount to going backwards.

Clearly, action on energy policy is long overdue. Congress needs to approve a comprehensive, national energy policy. The key word is comprehensive. A piece-meal approach is not the answer.

We need an energy policy that: ensures a diverse energy supply; promotes energy efficiency, new technologies, conservation, and environmentally compatible production; modernizes America’s energy production and distribution systems; strengthens our economy; and creates new jobs.

A national energy policy must recognize the importance of federal lands to meeting U.S. energy needs. These lands contain most of our nation’s estimated undiscovered oil and natural gas – about 80 percent of the nation’s oil and 59 percent of its natural gas. Most of this oil and gas is in the Mountain West states, Alaska, and on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Currently, only about 1.5 percent of all federal lands onshore and one-half percent offshore are under lease and producing, or capable of producing, oil and natural gas, according to the U.S. Minerals Management Service. Only 11 percent of the offshore submerged lands under U.S. jurisdiction are available for leasing. More than half the technically recoverable resources in the Mountain West are either off-limits or highly restricted. This is enough natural gas -- about 125 trillion cubic feet -- to heat for 30 years the 60 million homes currently using natural gas.

A national energy policy must address exploration and production issues for non-park federal lands and offshore resources, including increased access; streamlined and expedited regulatory and permitting processes; and better coordination between state and federal agencies. Access should be provided to the potentially vast oil resources beneath a small portion of ANWR in northeastern Alaska that could provide the equivalent of current imports from Saudi Arabia for more than 20 years.

In addition, America must develop and diversify its sources of natural gas supply, both domestically and internationally, to meet increased demand for clean-burning natural gas.
DOE projects total demand for natural gas will increase by 40 percent by 2025, primarily as a result of its increased use for electricity generation and industrial applications.

Increased import capacity for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is absolutely critical to meeting projected natural gas demand. LNG currently provides 2 percent of the nation’s natural gas, a figure that could rise to 21 percent by 2025, according to DOE. LNG can provide a dependable and competitive supply link to some of the largest, underutilized gas resources in the world. However, complicated rules stand in the way of bringing increased imports of LNG to U.S. markets. Improved federal and state policy coordination is needed to facilitate the siting, construction and licensing of LNG import terminals.

The expansion of refinery capacity must also be a national priority. Even with a projected expansion of product imports of 90 percent, EIA forecasts a need for 5.5 million barrels a day of additional refinery capacity and a 2 percent increase in refinery utilization. The federal government needs to act as a facilitator for coordinating and ensuring the timely review of federal, state and local permits to expand capacity at existing refineries and possibly even build a new refinery.

We must also address the problem of boutique fuels – the growing patchwork of government fuel requirements across the country. These state fuel requirements – often developed with little regard for the increased risk to fuel distribution and supply disruptions – have the effect of actually reducing supply, especially when demand is high.

Congress needs to provide a national solution by repealing the mandate for federal reformulated oxygenated gasoline (RFG) and implementing a federal phase-down of MTBE. Twenty states have already enacted MTBE bans, caps, or other limits; and other states are considering them. In the absence of federal legislation, consumers will be subject to further adverse impact of these uncoordinated state actions.

Any action on MTBE also must deal with a major unintended consequence of earlier Congressional action. In 1990, when Congress amended the Clean Air Act to impose the oxygenate mandate, which industry opposed; Senators and Congressmen alike pointed out that MTBE would have to be used in great quantities to meet this requirement. EPA approved MTBE’s use as a fuel additive. Now, fuel suppliers who used MTBE to comply with the oxygenate requirement are facing multi-million dollar suits brought by personal injury lawyers with claims that the additive was a defective product.

This is, above all, an issue of fairness. Any industry that partners with government to meet a societal need – in this case, clean air – should not later be victimized for doing what the government required it to do. As a matter of equity, a comprehensive energy policy must fix this situation.

National energy legislation before the last Congress included a narrowly tailored provision that would apply only to defective product claims under products liability law. This provision simply and fairly recognized that when Congress requires the use of fuels components, and when those components have been studied and approved by EPA, their mere presence in gasoline should not make it a “defective” product.

Let me stress that the defective product provision would not affect, in any way, a company’s legal responsibility to clean up contamination of any groundwater by gasoline, regardless of whether it contained oxygenates.

Nor would the provision affect liability under federal and state environmental laws. Accordingly, it would not affect response, remediation and cleanup. Federal and state environmental statutes, such as the underground storage tank laws, would still apply if gasoline were released and migrated into a well or a public drinking water supply. Let me also point out that there would be no defective product relief, if EPA requirements are violated.

This is not an issue limited to the petroleum industry, but should be of concern to all businesses and industries that could face similar lawsuits for complying with congressional mandates.

To conclude: All of these energy issues and concerns you will hear today add up to a need for action. America’s energy problems are becoming acute. Why the continued inaction by Congress? More people need to start asking that question.

It’s plain and simple: Congress needs to pass comprehensive energy legislation early in the new session. Too much is at stake for our country, our economy, and our place in the world to delay action any longer on this urgent national priority.


Date: 18 Jan 2005 Contact: Michael Shanahan

 

[David N]

Repeat Showing

I apologize if I mislead anyone. My local cable company had this listed at the wrong time. As it was I only got to see the last 1/2 hour. :banghead:

 

[Mr. X]

State of the Energy Industry 2005, Petroleum Issues
Presentation by Red Cavaney
President and CEO, American Petroleum Institute
at the U.S. Energy Association’s Forum:
“The State of the Energy Industry 2005”
January 18, 2005

Good post. Too bad that government is no more visionary than the free market, which is reationary to crisises the vast majority of the time. If we are busy protecting the US population and infrastructure from terrorism at home, we must be prepared for those terrorists to act overseas to cut the one US economic lifeline they have easy access to and plan accordingly, rather than throw our hands up and wait for free markets to react to the shortfall.

 

[richyoung]

You can't grow enough turkeys to solve this problem. The costs of starting those new alternative fule companies will be too high to be viable.

The high cost of "dinosaur juice" is what makes such conversion plants (which will run on ANYTHING containing carbon, not just turkey parts...) economically possible, and for those wishing to build one to secure investment capitol. That's the way the free market works. The more demand for oil, the less the supply, and AUTOMATICALLY, investment in the alternatives will become more attractive.

I am talking about a system based on cheap oil, and you are talking about alternatives. I feel that there are none.

The less cheap the oil, the more the alternatives, Do you KNOW how much oil shale we have? 2 TRILLION barrels - enough for 100 years. Cost of recover - around $30 a barrel. Curret oil prices - pushing $60 a barrel. Add to that 10.4 billion barrels in ANWR, an estimated 75 billion offshore...all this just in the U.S. Ther IS no "oil shortage" - what there is, is a shortage of shallow, low sulfer, that was easy to drill for and refine with technology from 40 years ago. We have even better technology now - we are just going to have to drill deeper (and further off-shore) to get the oil, which raises the cost of producing it somewhat. As prices rise, less oil will be consumed and more alternatives will come on-line IF you keep government out of it.

 

[mmike87]

Do you KNOW how much oil shale we have? 2 TRILLION barrels - enough for 100 years. Cost of recover - around $30 a barrel

.

How does this compare to the current cost of crude to extract? I imagine that this is much higher in cost than "standard" oil to recover.

One thing we have to remember is that, no we're not going to run out of oil or evergy in the near future. But the longer we wait to develop alternatives the sooner we'll run out of CHEAP oil and energy, and the world economy, especially Western economies, depend not just on oil but relatively CHEAP oil.

I don't sleep any better at night knowing that in five years I'll be able to fill my car with $4 a gallon oil from oil shale. I'd prefer an alternative closer to the cost now, but that may not be realistic.

 

[mmike87]

Regulation PREVENTS market forces from reacting, and, thereby solving the proble, That's the whole point of regulation - an attempt to "over-rule" the answer the free market is already giving you, because you don't like the answer! Like most such things, the "cure" is worse than the disease, even assuming such an attempt is a legitimate exercise of government power, which it usually isn't.

I agree - regulation would never work, long term. What I hope for is that it will become "in" to seek out more efficient devices - be it cars, etc. If the public starts to ask private industry for alternatives, industry will deliver. Certainly they will not leave a potential market untapped.

However, with so many people sitting around even denying there is a potential problem here, that does not send a message to private industry to start getting it together. Unfortunately, only when gas gets too expensive for the mainstream populace to afford will people start to create demand for alternatives. I personally would prefer we start before it gets that bad.

It is encouraging however that sales of Hybrid vehicles are on the rise, and it's starting to be a little "hip and trendy" to have one. They make great second cars for commuters who want to spend as little on gas going back and forth every day.

Someone people will always have the "I'll use whatever I want" attitude. Those folks will be the first ones screaming when gas hits $4 a gallon, someday.

 

[mmike87]

All of these energy issues and concerns you will hear today add up to a need for action. America’s energy problems are becoming acute. Why the continued inaction by Congress? More people need to start asking that question.

Why the continued inaction by Congress? Because no one gives a damn. People are too busy worrying about steroid use in professional athletics and cell phone usage in movie theaters to bat an eyelash about where our energy will come from in 5, 10, or 50 years.

The proof is in the pudding ... by even suggesting to folks on this board to take a look at their REAL energy needs and voluntarily start to be a little more thrifty and not blatently waste energy resulted in outright hostile "you are not going to tell me what to do" responses.

No one is telling anyone what to do. Furthermore, no one should HAVE to tell you that being overtly wasteful is not good for anyone, regardless of what you can personally afford. Then again, people will argue that leaving every light on in their house 24x7 (and yes, I know people who do that) is an essential component to them being able to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are so many ways people can conserve that would likely not impact your lifestyle at all. Othwise, we may have rolling blackouts someday. That would suck.

Private industry would supply alternatives is people demanded them. As of right now, no one seems to care. I'd like to see the government ENCOURAGE the development of alternative energy sources, and they could start by just admitting that there is a potential future problem here. Regulation is not the answer, but neither is denial.

 

[richyoung]

How does this compare to the current cost of crude to extract? I imagine that this is much higher in cost than "standard" oil to recover.

Cost to recover 1 barrel of oil shale oil: $30

Selling price of 1 barrel of oil: pushing $60

It doesn't MATTER what the cost of recovering (and transporting) other oil is: at these prices, the owner of an oil-shale processing plant can double his money! Mark my words - they will be built.

 

[richyoung]

No one is telling anyone what to do. Furthermore, no one should HAVE to tell you that being overtly wasteful is not good for anyone, regardless of what you can personally afford.

That's the point - in YOUR eyes, its "wasting" - it's obviously NOT in the view of those doing it. Why should:

1. You, (or anyone or group of anyones) get to choose for someone else what constitutes "waste"?

2. I (or anyone else) have to answer to you (or anyone else) how I spend my legally earned money?

 

[Richard.Howe]

Mark my words - they will be built

They are being built. I'm on a team building one of them right now.

 

[mmike87]

That's the point - in YOUR eyes, its "wasting" - it's obviously NOT in the view of those doing it. Why should:

1. You, (or anyone or group of anyones) get to choose for someone else what constitutes "waste"?

2. I (or anyone else) have to answer to you (or anyone else) how I spend my legally earned money?

I swear no one is getting it or reading anything I am typing. The point is that YOU DO get to decide what is waste and what isn't. I firmly believe that EVERYONE could be a little more frugal with their use of resources. YOU can decide where that savings comes from.

For example - I carpool. No one told me to. It has not infringed on my lifestyle at all and I save money and resources in the process.

Am I to understand that there are some folks on this board that honestly claim that they could not save ANYTHING when it comes to resource consumption? If that is true, than my hat's off to you - and more people should be like you.

People need to police THEMSLEVES. If you don't - someday the government WILL do it for you. Does anyone actually not believe that the government would not hesitate to pass harsh restrictions on evergy usage to save it's own ass?

Two summers ago my county was down to less than 60 days of water. It was a huge fine to water your plants and there was a hotline for turning in your neighbors. Personally, that is not very appealing to me.

So, again - all I am suggesting is that YOU as an INDIVIDUAL look at YOUR energy use and see if YOU can see any way that YOU can be a little more frugal. At no time did I or do I suggest that anyone ELSE should decide for you. My opinions on other's SUV's are my opinions ... I am not deciding for anyone, nor do I want to.

 

[mmike87]

Cost to recover 1 barrel of oil shale oil: $30

Selling price of 1 barrel of oil: pushing $60

It doesn't MATTER what the cost of recovering (and transporting) other oil is: at these prices, the owner of an oil-shale processing plant can double his money! Mark my words - they will be built.

Of course they will be built. But I fail to see how that is relevant. Western economies, especially ours, is largely dependant on CHEAP energy. Oil from shale will likely not be nearly as profitable at $60 a barrel that regular crude is. Not too long ago crude was $25 a barrel. Companies still made money. Thus, the cost to extract "regular" crude is probably far less than $30. One of oil's main selling points is the incredible amount of energy you get for your extraction dollar, and few things compare.

I don't think anyone really, seriously thinks we're going to run our of evergy - as in the lights going out. But can our economy continue to thrive (if that's what it's been doing) with energy that is twice as expensive? I don't know the answer to that.

Again I will stress the need to diversify our energy sources for matters of national security as well. It seems like this point is being missed. Even if we find more domestic oil, our oil infrastructure is still vunerable to terrorist attack, and a more diversified energy structure benefits us all. Not to mention that market forces would allow competing energies to help keeps realized costs down.

 

[Art Eatman]

"That's the point - in YOUR eyes, its "wasting" - it's obviously NOT in the view of those doing it. Why should:

1. You, (or anyone or group of anyones) get to choose for someone else what constitutes "waste"?

2. I (or anyone else) have to answer to you (or anyone else) how I spend my legally earned money?"

Well, I don't HAVE to care about what kind of world my son will inherit, or his children; after all, what have unborn generations ever done for me?

It seems to me that when you see figures of "enough for 40 years" or "...100 years" or suchlike, the idea would naturally occur that some sort of restraint in the use that resource would be appropriate. To me, that's what "conserving" is all about; I'm reminded of the sign at a restaurant's buffet: "Take what you want, but eat what you take." IOW, use, but don't waste.

So, yeah, "It's for the children." Yours and mine and everybody else's. And their children. The idea is to have whatever sort of smooth transition that can be had, without having another (Bleep!) war over what's left of some particular resource.

It's all well and good, I guess, for us to use energy like we're on a Saturday night spree--which our society is doing--but my experience has been that such are commonly followed by hangovers.

I've always looked into the future as best I could. Today is indeed important, sure--but those who don't consider what's coming along might find that the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

Art

 

[Richard.Howe]

Then have fun in your Prius, and watch out for me in my V8 Tundra.

If we were anywhere close to being low on resource, then your water analogy might hold. But to have a consistent analogy that makes sense -- do you feel guilty about watering your plants when there's nothing resembling a water shortage? Do you have pangs of guilt about pollution when you pee in the ocean?

In your water shortage metaphor, is there virtue in reducing water usage? Sure. Is it necessary virtue? Is it smart virtue? Is it even relevant virtue?

Methinks there might be better things to spend our energy on (no pun intended!)

Rich

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

I think I posted on this subject way back......It does not look good.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/